Not since the launch of Image Comics do I recall the amount of public discussion and debate for several months prior to the release of the actual first issue. Now that the first of the actual comic books has hit the stands, I thought it might be nice to have a thread to discuss the comics themselves, rather than the controversy surrounding them.

MINUTEMEN #1: Elsewhere in this forum, Cap has posted a review of this first issue of the first prequel mini-series. I don’t know whether or not he plans to review each issue of every series individually, but if not, here’s a place to discuss them all. For my own part, I liked the way Darwin Cooke has begun to delve into the origins and backgrounds of characters which had only supporting roles in the Moore/Gibbons original. He’s even manage to successfully mimic some of the storytelling tropes of the classic groundbreaking series.

“So far, so good,” says I.

Views: 1712

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think they grubbed just enough money out of Beneath Watchmen to make the considerable bad feeling and contempt they've generated seem worth it to them.  Therefore they might just do the sequel now.  How old would Nite-Owl be in 2012?

 

We await Watchmen 2: The Dark Dreiberg Returns!

 

And BTW, Philip, the Misadventures of Moloch is on the way, apparently, scripted by one JMS esq.

I guess the thing that bugs me about it -- the thing that makes it feel so very unnecessary -- is the fact that, by choosing to do Watchmen, they've made it impossible for me NOT to compare it to the original.

They specifically chose those characters for a reason.

Work the equation the other other direction: If you take the new series (serieses?) out of the context of the original 12 issue series, what are you left with? An interesting take on the original, ORIGINAL Charleton characters. So why not use them instead? It's certainly not like the original series where the characters will end up dead and unusable -- clearly these characters are, at the very least, going to be set in place for Watchman #1.

Seems to me this would have accomplished the same thing: 1. Allowed the creators to tell some interesting stories,  2. Given fans like me the chance to see some good work by said creators, and 3. the ADDED bonus of not pissing anyone off. I mean, it's not like anyone's going to be too upset the see L.A.W. retconned away.

No, they chose those characters specifically to EVOKE the original series, to expand upon and, in a few cases add to, stories that were alluded to in the original series. Personally, I find that a distraction from the reason I'M reading the series (or serieses), which is to ogle Darwyn Cooke and Amanda Connors art. I'd buy Captain Planet if Darwyn Cooke drew it.

But maybe that's just me.

Also, the Saturday Morning Watchmen video is effing hilarious.


Jeff of Earth-J said:

I don't disagree with you, David, that "Before Watchmen" pales somewhat in comparison to the original, but the series stand head an shoulders above most other mainstream superheroes these days. Philip has the right idea: don't compare them to the original, but rather let them stand on their own merits.

Not to play devil's advocate, but if DC had taken the tack of using the original Charlton characters, everyone would have been saying, "These are obviously supposed to be the Watchmen characters. Why not use them?" :)

 

That, and I, for one, proabably wouldn't be reading it. (I didn't read L.A.W., either.)

I think that if the stories were about the original Charlton heroes, they wouldn't have attracted the same creators and certainly wouldn't have attracted as large an audience. I don't think DC cares about pissing people off if they make money. Over the years they have made a lot of changes to characters and killed characters that upset a lot of people. If the changes/deaths make more money, they stick. If not, they recon or resurrect as needed.

Richard Willis said:

I think that if the stories were about the original Charlton heroes, they wouldn't have attracted the same creators and certainly wouldn't have attracted as large an audience. I don't think DC cares about pissing people off if they make money. Over the years they have made a lot of changes to characters and killed characters that upset a lot of people. If the changes/deaths make more money, they stick. If not, they recon or resurrect as needed.

Isn't the flip side of that proposition that DC attracted readers who liked what they were doing? They certainly couldn't be making money off it if everyone hated what they did, right? Some people must have bought it who DID like it.

DneColt said:

Work the equation the other other direction: If you take the new series (serieses?) out of the context of the original 12 issue series, what are you left with? An interesting take on the original, ORIGINAL Charleton characters. So why not use them instead? It's certainly not like the original series where the characters will end up dead and unusable -- clearly these characters are, at the very least, going to be set in place for Watchman #1.

Seems to me this would have accomplished the same thing: 1. Allowed the creators to tell some interesting stories,  2. Given fans like me the chance to see some good work by said creators, and 3. the ADDED bonus of not pissing anyone off. I mean, it's not like anyone's going to be too upset the see L.A.W. retconned away.

But if they had done that, these series wouldn't have sold nearly as well. DC and all of these other companies are looking to make money, and once people fully accept that fact this won't bother people so much. Pretty much any time either of the Big 2 do anything half of the comics reading populace gets pissed off over it whether they read it or not.

For me I've been enjoying the various series for the most part. I've like Silk Spectre more than I ever expected. I didn't even plan on buying it, until I saw how upset so many people were getting over it. Then again, I don't put the original series up on a pedestal like so many others do.

Captain Atom = Dr. Manhattan

 

Right?!

Before Watchmen: Nite Owl #2

The theme appears to be repression, not just sexual but social and ethical. A dead hooker means nothing but it should. A hero does not get involved with the Twilight Lady but he wants to. Dan Driesberg thought by becoming the Nite Owl that he was breaking free from the shackles of his past only to discover that he is still bound by them but that he has added to them. Now he must placate his partner, Rorschach, follow in the legacy of the first Nite Owl and maintain his public image.

Even knowing that all the Before Watchmen books are rated M, the nudity is a shock. Nite Owl is clearly...curious about the Twilight Lady just as her overt sexuality enrages Rorschach. Is he that outraged? Is he frustrated? Or is he jealous?

There are no women in Driesberg's life that we know of except his mother, the Eternal Victim, Silk Spectre, the Fantasy Woman and the Twilight Lady, the Temptress: his own personal Three-In-One Goddess of Maiden, Mother and Crone/Witch.

No one saw anything. No one heard anything. The crime is repressed. The voices are silenced. Super-heroes don't get involved with seedy crimes. Until one must choose between Society and Justice.

Pretty heady stuff for a "Bad-Ass" hero! ;-)

I think most of Rorschach's attitude toward sexual matters has been established as rooted in his childhood. His mother had a revolving door of lovers/tricks while he was a small boy, which he pretty much had to watch. I think if anything, the character is asexual.

Philip Portelli said:

.....her overt sexuality enrages Rorschach. Is he that outraged? Is he frustrated? Or is he jealous?

I agree, Richard...I'm with you.

Wasn't there a comment to that effect from the Psychologist in the original Watchmen series?

More than just being asexual, young Rorschach equated sex, nudity and overt feminity as bad, immoral things that caused him pain, stunting his own emotional growth. Like Driesberg, he became an introvert, using a costumed identity to release his pent-upemptions, whatever they may be.

Was Rorschach gay? Hardly but he was disinterested in women and may have considered his partnership with Nite Owl to be of purer stuff. Thus the "spats".

I didn't see any torches or pitchforks.  I thought the joke led to a very intelligent and mature conversation about a character's sexuality. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2021   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service